[OpenID-Specs-eKYC-IDA] Claims Naming (ICAO/place_of_birth)

Achim Schlosser achim.schlosser at enid.eu
Thu Mar 19 14:35:20 UTC 2020

Also added to #1159

Feedback in same order:

- place_of_birth: Fully agree, as suggested in #1119
- name-…..: Fully agree, adding name is an already existing claim in OIDC Core - no need to do anything (End-User's full name in displayable form including all name parts, possibly including titles and suffixes, ordered according to the End-User's locale and preferences.)
- salutation: Fully agree, to my understanding the inclusion of titles as official part of a name is also very country specific
- gender - OIDC core currently allows for further extension if needed (“Values defined by this specification are female and male. Other values MAY be used when neither of the defined values are applicable.“), so using undefined/X would be no problem. Defining within the standard might be tricky as my gut-feeling would be that this differentiates largely with individual countries. In Germany the formal definition is female/make/divers, might be quite different in other countries.
- nationalities - It's a fair assumption, if a person would have multiple nationalities in terms of eKYC the attestation would be bound to a single one



On 17.03.20, 12:34, "Openid-specs-ekyc-ida on behalf of Torsten Lodderstedt via Openid-specs-ekyc-ida" <openid-specs-ekyc-ida-bounces at lists.openid.net on behalf of openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net> wrote:

    Hi all,
    here is my resolution proposal for #1119 & 1159:
    	• place_of_birth: to be consistent from a RPs perspective, we either need to change birthdate to date_of_birth or place_of_birth to birthplace. Given birthdate is in the market for quite some time, using birthplace seems to be the reasonable choice. This is inline with the feedback in https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/issues/1119/place_of_birth-birthplace
    	• given_name, family_name and middle_name: replacing this by Primary Identifier and Secondary Identifier seems too drastic and not necessary given the current claims can be used to represent names across countries. It seems the claim “name” could be useful in some countries.
    	• salutation, title: I would stick to the more fine grain representation then adding this to the secondary identifier/given_name
    	• gender: value range should be extended to cover unspecified/X as well.
    	• nationalities: I think we should align with ICAO and change this to nationality (again). I cannot imagine a case where an OP would attest multiple nationalities in the same verified_claims element. I think an OP would have multiple verified_claims objects for different nationalities, since it would need to check different evidence.
    Please give your feedback. I will also put this on the agenda for tomorrow. 
    Best regards,
    Openid-specs-ekyc-ida mailing list
    Openid-specs-ekyc-ida at lists.openid.net

More information about the Openid-specs-ekyc-ida mailing list